Canada Post could be on strike as early as Friday. The Crown corporation confirmed the news around 4 p.m. The conflict, which had been put on hold by the government in November, remains unresolved. Postal workers are fighting to protect the public postal service, while management appears to be following the lead of Amazon and FedEx to address what it describes as a “difficult financial situation.”
Earlier today, postal workers held a surprise action at Montreal’s Complexe Desjardins, gathering for about 30 minutes. At noon, more than fifty postal workers appeared in the middle of the busy shopping center. Facing them from the upper level, François Kirsch, equipped with a microphone and sound system, had a message for passersby.
”Postal workers “want to provide a public and universal postal service in Quebec,” declared Léo-Blanchet worker Kirsch. To do that, Canada Post must stop closing post offices across the country" in order to halt service cuts in rural and suburban areas.
“The solution to Canada Post’s problems lies in diversifying and expanding services for the public—whether that means installing electric vehicle charging stations, launching senior wellness checks, offering internet and mobile phone services, or developing financial services and our well-known postal bank project. Canada Post must reinvent itself!”
In a statement, Canada Post said it “remains committed to reaching collective agreements focused on protecting and enhancing the wages and benefits that are important to our people while reflecting the Corporation's current realities.” But workers appear skeptical.
Profit or public service, what comes first?
Last Thursday, Commissioner Kaplan released a report on labour relations and Canada Post’s mission. He had been appointed by former Labour Minister Steven MacKinnon last fall after postal workers had their right to strike taken away.
The report is being strongly criticized by workers at the Crown corporation. “It’s fascinating to see how [the Commissioner’s recommendations] are an exact copy of Canada Post management’s demands,” said Pierre-Luc Grenon, a letter carrier in Chambly and director of the Union’s Education and Legislation Committee at the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) in Montreal.
He elaborated: “We’re seeing the end of home delivery, a push for community mailboxes, and the desire to use part-time labour for parcel delivery, all in the name of flexibility. That way, they can avoid focusing on full-time staff with benefits.”
These measures are supposedly aimed at tackling Canada Post’s deficit. The Corporation states that “the postal system must change to compete in today's delivery market […] Since 2018, the Corporation has recorded more than $3 billion in losses before tax, and it will post another significant loss for 2024.”
Yet The North Star has reported that these claims may be misleading, reflecting political choices rather than economic necessities. Furthermore, CUPW has repeatedly proposed ways to generate new revenue streams while offering valuable services to the public.
But for François Kirsch, even the deficit argument doesn’t hold up: “The vast majority of public services like health, education, safety, transportation, are not profitable in a commercial sense, and that’s normal. Their mission is to serve people, not make money.”
He drew a parallel between last fall’s back-to-work order and the issue of profitability: “Time and again, in 2011, 2018, and now 2024, [Conservative and Liberal governments] have passed back-to-work legislation—and most recently, invoked Sections 107 and 108 of the Canada Labour Code—to force us back on the job, claiming our services are too important to be disrupted.”
“And yet… when it comes time to talk about investments, wages, or working conditions, they tell us Canada Post must be profitable, must operate like a private business, without public support. That’s when the contradiction becomes obvious,” he exclaimed.
“If Canada Post truly is an essential service, then it deserves to be treated like one, publicly supported and publicly funded.” Otherwise, he argues, why take away their right to strike?